[Farmall] Oh Yeah?

[Jim Becker]

That looks like a tie-on seat cover.  We could probably cut him some slack
on that until the CP check what the seat under it looks like.  There are a
few other things that should probably be written up and left for the DA to
decide whether to prosecute.
1) My calibrated eye says the rear tires are 9 or 9.5, which weren't
available in '47.  (Less than 7" rims with those tires would be another
violation.)
2) Hydraulics weren't available in'47 either.
3) The blade wasn't built until at least '53 (at least '54 if it is really a
Cub-54A, as claimed).

Better take 2 pads.

Jim Becker        jim.becker at verizon.net

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Sloane" <msloane at att.net>
To: "Farmall/IHC mailing list" <farmall at lists.antique-tractor.com>
Sent: Friday, July 09, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: [Farmall] Oh Yeah?


> That seat doesn't look right either - I don't recall ever seeing an
> original Cub with a two-tone seat. They were either bare metal or
> covered with "silver" canvas covered padding.
>
> Mike
>
> Jim Becker wrote:
>
> > A post just showed up on YT, a guy selling a Cub that he claims "This
> > tractor has had an expensive complete restoration and is in dead mint
> > condition, ready for that next tractor show."  Just from the 450x308
picture
> > with his post I can see the wrong decals, no paint on the carburetor,
maybe
> > the wrong cap on the air intake, the rear wheel or wheel weight is not
> > installed correctly, the rear rockshaft lifting link is severely bent
and
> > looks like the wrong one.  The guy is just asking for a visit from the
> > Correct Police  He is in Wisconsin.  So maybe we should send the
Wisconsin
> > percinct over.
> >
> > Here is his post (which shouild have been in the classifieds):
> > http://www.ytmag.com/farmall/messages/429564.html